The National Security Angle to the Birthright Citizenship Case 42%
By Peter Van Buren0%
6/23/2026, 4:00:00 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 15.6% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 1,609 faulty-reasoning hits from 895 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.1% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,761 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.30% of the article peer group.
The Supreme Court will soon decide <em>Trump </em>v<em>.
Barbara, </em>in which the president seeks by executive order to overturn the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
The amendment as currently interpreted says almost any child born on U.S. soil is automatically and forever an American citizen.
The court will most likely reflect long precedent to allow birthright citizenship as it exists today to stand unaltered.
But its decision will have profound secondary effects, not the least of which is determining the future of birthright citizenship tourism and its possible effect on national security.
The question of whether most children born in the U.S. are citizens connects back to the deadly omissions of the Founding Fathers when they failed to address slavery in creating the country.
The founding documents did not even recognize blacks as full humans, never mind considering granting those born here citizenship.
In the lead-up to the Civil War, when the right to vote became crucial as new states entered the Union slave or free, the 1857 Supreme Court decision in <em>Dred Scott </em>v<em>.
Sandford</em> held that those descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States.
Some legal scholars drew implications from <em>Scott</em> to mean all children born in the United States to foreign parents were not automatically U.S. citizens.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War, as part of reconciling the status of millions of then-freed slaves.
The Amendment’s citizenship clause specifically overruled <em>Scott </em>v<em>.
Sandford</em>, stating, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Controversy erupted even as the amendment was being drafted.
Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania argued states should not be forced to grant citizenship to the children of “Asiatic” immigrants or “Gypsies” who, he said, did not share American values or owe true allegiance to the country.
Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan stated the Amendment was written to <a href="https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship/the-citizenship-clause-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-the-congressional-debate/">exclude</a> the children of “foreigners” and “aliens.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois went on to successfully clarify that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant completely under the legal authority of U.S. courts.
Because immigrants were required to obey American laws, could be tried in American courts, and paid American taxes, their children born on American soil were included.
The only noteworthy groups deliberately excluded were children of foreign diplomats, who were not subject to U.S. law via their diplomatic immunity, and <a href="https://www.archives.gov/files/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924.pdf">initially</a> Native Americans living on sovereign tribal lands.
They answered to tribal governments, not the U.S. government.
The 14th Amendment's concept of citizenship was fully tested in the 1898 case <em>United States </em>v<em>.
Wong Kim Ark</em>.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898">confirmed</a> birth on U.S. soil grants automatic citizenship, even if the parents are both foreigners or barred from ever becoming naturalized citizens themselves.
Most mainstream constitutional scholars believe the legislative history as a whole, combined with <em>Wong</em>, supports citizenship for the children of aliens.
Birthright citizenship does leave a problem for America to deal with: Will a foreign power, say China, use the idea to groom an American citizen who also owes allegiance to China into a spy, perhaps taking advantage of his American citizenship and highly-desired Mandarin language skills, to infiltrate him from the earliest stages into the CIA, State Department, NSA or military?
Even short of actual spying, secondary allegiances can complicate decision-making in sensitive positions.
The issue is loyalty, not leverage (i.e., relatives for the Ministry of Truth to pressure in the home country, investments abroad to help or harm), which can be screened for.
Intelligence officers of all nationalities have long-known that, after money, ideology is the most powerful tool to convince someone to betray his government.
Desire for importance, status, or appreciation from the “home” country closely follows.
Things like blackmail do exist, just like in the movies, but are crude instruments that lead the target to resent the foreign government, not want to help it.
The presence of a vast birth tourism industry, sending an estimated 50,000 Chinese to the U.S. a year to give birth to American citizens according to some Chinese <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/story/2019/03/06/why-chinese-parents-come-america-give-birth">agencies</a>, sets the stage and raises the level of concern.
Most of those Chinese births are <a href="https://www.npr.org/2026/03/29/nx-s1-5761340/birth-tourism-citizenship-supreme-court-case">economically</a> oriented, but the large number leaves room for bad actors.
This all involves a lot of speculation, and it is well-known that foreign spies target Americans of all flavors, native-born or naturalized.
But any mechanism that increases long-term Chinese access to the United States deserves <a href="https://amzn.to/4ooPVwe">scrutiny</a> from a national security perspective.
Most debates over birthright citizenship focus on legal interpretation or immigration policy.
The espionage question is one of national security.
It asks whether a foreign government could exploit the doctrine for long-term intelligence purposes.
While publicly known cases are impossible to locate, the job of intelligence professionals is to evaluate threats based not only on demonstrated harm but also on opportunity and intent.
Birth tourism creates a mechanism by which foreign governments could establish long-term human footholds inside the United States.
Whether that possibility is significant enough to justify changing a constitutional understanding that has existed for more than a century remains a central question.
One hopes the Supreme Court gives this its due consideration in adjudicating <em>Trump </em>v<em>.
Barbara</em>.
Speakers
3speakers8.9%attributed speech815writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageJacob Howard
19 attributed words24% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.